Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stig of the Dump on February 26, 2010, 11:35:44 pm
-
I am trying to eat 3 parts lean to 1 part fat by volume, as recommended.
It suddenly struck me as I was scooping out the inside of a marrow bone with a spoon in the bath last night: How does bone marrow fit into that ratio? Is it fat? Or is it some sort of perfect mixture, and doesn't count towards any calculations?
-
It depends on what type of animal it's from, how old the animal was, which part of the skeleton, of course it has to be free range or wild. Some marrows have more blood, some denser fat or softer fat etc. From the bovine types of animals I count it as a fat.
-
Bone marrow is so hit and miss, I've had some that were delicious, it was like dessert and others unpalatable. Someone needs to write a guide on that topic.
-
Bone marrow is so hit and miss, I've had some that were delicious, it was like dessert and others unpalatable. Someone needs to write a guide on that topic.
Totally agreed. I've had bone marrow that was so sweet that I thought some sugar had gotten on it. LOL
I've also had very dry, unpalatable marrow.
I also wish someone would write a guide.
-
i think one should only eat the soft liquidy type of marrow,the dry hard type i view as inferior
-
Thanks - my instinct is to count it as fat. Mine was really tasty. I can't believe the butcher expects you to give it to the dog!
-
Here is an excellent paper that breaks down all the fatty-acid composition for elk, deer and antelope. The look at marrow, muscle, brain and adipose fat. The ratio of saturated:mono:poly is similar for marow in all three and about 22:65:6
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Final%20Fatty%20Acid%20PDF.pdf
But this doesn't give the percentage of mass that is actually fat. From the usda nutrient data website, caribou marrow is 84% fat and 7% protein. But there is another paper here
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Encephalization%20Final%20PDF.pdf
The total fat content of ruminant
marrow is highly variable and is dependent upon the nutritional status of the animal
[31], hence we used a mean value of 51 g fat/100 g sample from a sample of 17 African ungulates
So, they come up with 51% percent as an average significantly less than the 84% from the usda. Each gram of marrow is between 4.5 - 7.5 calories, a huge range unfortunately for those couting calories.
Also worthy of note in the first paper
Marrow also contained the
highest percentages of CLA, ranging from 1.0 to 1.5% of
total FA. These values (20 – 30mg CLA= g fat) are comparable
to those found in dairy products and beef, the highest
modern day food sources of CLA (Chin et al, 1992). In several
animal models of carcinogenesis, CLA has been shown to bea potent cancer inhibitor that provides significant protection
at dietary concentrations (0.1 –1% of total FA; Ip, 1997) that
would be found in marrow. CLA may also beneficially influence
the progression of atherosclerosis via its potential antioxidant
property.
I just ate about 100g of marrow and find the ratio of bone to marrow to be around 5-7:1. So 1 kg of bone will have around 140g of marrow and 700 calories at the least.
-
Really useful Paleo Donk. So in essence, it is more of an unknown blend, than virtually all fat as I was supposing. I think I'll just treat is a balanced meal, for mental simplicity, as I'm not the calorie counting and nutrient taxonomy type. Thank you for all the informative links.
-
The composition is very well known (nothing really balancing about it) according to that link above. Its 51% fat, 7% protein and the rest is water. By calories its well over 90% fat. The exact breakdown of marrow fatty acids is given in full detail on page three.
-
Thanks for trying to help me Paleo Donk. Imparting information to me must seem like looking into the sleepy eyes of a doddery old mule to you. When it come to food and maths, I need really simple heuristics based on what I'm looking at - like 3 parts lean to 1 part fat.
(I understand why people are interested in the science and maths of nutrition, but I have no interest in it at all. Odd as it might seem for someone interested in diet, I have never ever counted calories, or done those calculations people do multiplying different parts by different amounts. It just doesn't appeal - I feel a warm fuzz descending over my brain just thinking about it. Maths and food don't mix for me.
I'm also a totally blank if someone says something like "you need bananas for potassium". I think for some people the "scientification" of it gives it greater authority, and helps them control their diet - for me, it makes it less authoritative, and makes me remember how often, and wildly, scientific recommendations have changed over my lifetime, and how wrong the mainstream nutritional scientific advice seems to be, even now. I suppose I believe that nutritional science is so incomplete (certainly my grasp of it is), that it's not much different to saying "bananas will halve your melancholic vapours".)
I will treat marrow mainly as fat, for my 3:1 rule of thumb.
-
Only thing is that there are different ways of writing the same thing.
80/20 - Meat/Fat
20/20 - Protein/Fat
33.3/67.7 - Protein Calories/Fat Calories
That can get confusing when people don't say which they mean >.>
-
SOTD,
I actually agree completely with your mentalitly of not really worrying about the maths of nutrition...eventually. I'll try and give you an example that might clarify where I am coming from.
When I first started playing poker I spent heaps of time learning the probability that my opponents would hold certain cards, learning the odds of hitting my hand, narrowing down opponents range of hands using simulations etc... Basically, I studied the math behind poker intensively for a long time until it became automatic and I didn't even have to really think about it anymore. I still used it but I started to rely more on my instinct to tell me what to do. I sort of just felt like a certain action was correct and made my move. I played so many hundreds of thousands of hands that these actions became second nature.
I think the same line of thinking can be applied to diet. Eventually, I will get to a point where I won't really need to measure anything out. I will instintively have this feel for what I need to eat. But, right now I am a loooong way away from getting there. I still feel like eating bowls of rice pudding and can't really rely on my instincts at the moment. I need to precisely measure out and take data and notes on how I feel to mark my progression. It may take years but hopefully my senses will come through as they did with poker and I won't have to rely on any math, I'll just know and act.
-
Very well said Paleo Donk.
I am thinking about learning to paraglide, and unless I want to kill myself in short order, the same technique must be applied. I suppose diet is right up there with paragliding when it comes to the fatality rate, when I think about it. Probably much higher.
-
I'm also a totally blank if someone says something like "you need bananas for potassium". I think for some people the "scientification" of it gives it greater authority, and helps them control their diet - for me, it makes it less authoritative, and makes me remember how often, and wildly, scientific recommendations have changed over my lifetime, and how wrong the mainstream nutritional scientific advice seems to be, even now. I suppose I believe that nutritional science is so incomplete (certainly my grasp of it is), that it's not much different to saying "bananas will halve your melancholic vapours".)
I love that paragraph. That was so great. That pretty much sums up my attitude too, toward a lot of dietary advice, except that I do pay some attention to mineral ratios and specific vitamin content.